Reduction of patient exposure in pediatric radiology.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES The authors determined whether presently used exposure levels in pediatric imaging can be reduced without loss of information or a decrease in diagnostic accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS Multiple (stacked) image detectors and filters were used to obtain identical compute radiographic images at different exposure levels of neonates with either no active lung disease or hyaline membrane disease. Physical characteristics of the images were measured. A contrast-detail study and a receiver operating characteristic study were conducted to measure observer performance. RESULTS Physical measurements and results of the contrast-detail study revealed that the dose-reduction images were essentially limited by x-ray quantum noise. Results of the receiver operating characteristic study indicated that diagnostic accuracy did not decrease significantly up to about 75% exposure reduction levels, although image quality rating data decreased with each exposure reduction. CONCLUSION Decreasing exposure levels to about 75% of current levels may be acceptable in some clinical situations where dose is a concern, such as in pediatric imaging.

[1]  W A Murphy,et al.  Photostimulable phosphor digital radiography of the extremities: diagnostic accuracy compared with conventional radiography. , 1991, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  William J. Dallas,et al.  New method to determine the lower limits in patient exposure: stacked computed radiography image detectors , 1990, Medical Imaging.

[3]  R. Mole Radiation effects on pre-natal development and their radiological significance. , 1979, The British journal of radiology.

[4]  S. Webb The Physics of Medical Imaging , 1990 .

[5]  H. R. Blackwell,et al.  Contrast Threshold of the Human eye , 1946 .

[6]  A. Rosenfield,et al.  Low-dose digital urography in the pregnant patient. , 1987, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[7]  J A Seibert,et al.  Computed radiography X-ray exposure trends. , 1995, Academic radiology.

[8]  H. E. Johns,et al.  Physics of Radiology , 1983 .

[9]  J P Jones,et al.  Low-dose digital computed radiography in pediatric chest imaging. , 1988, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  S. Matteson,et al.  Effects of Rare-earth Filters on Patient Exposure and Image Contrast , 1987, Journal of dental research.

[11]  G T Barnes,et al.  Radiographic mottle: a comprehensive theory. , 1982, Medical physics.

[12]  M S Kogutt,et al.  Computed radiographic imaging: use in low-dose leg length radiography. , 1987, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  S J Dwyer,et al.  Computed radiography in musculoskeletal imaging: state of the art. , 1992, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  Arnold R. Cowen,et al.  Signal, noise and SNR transfer properties of computed radiography , 1993 .

[15]  H R BLACKWELL,et al.  Contrast thresholds of the human eye. , 1946, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[16]  J. Coltman,et al.  Fluoroscopic image brightening by electronic means. , 1948, Radiology.

[17]  S S Sagel,et al.  Artifacts in computed radiography. , 1991, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  C Kimme-Smith,et al.  Mammographic film-processor temperature, development time, and chemistry: effect on dose, contrast, and noise. , 1989, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  M. Sonoda,et al.  Computed radiography utilizing scanning laser stimulated luminescence. , 1983, Radiology.

[20]  J. P. Sackinger,et al.  High Performance Continuous Zoom X-Ray Image Intensifiers , 1972, Other Conferences.

[21]  A. Rose,et al.  Vision: human and electronic , 1973 .

[22]  W. Hendee,et al.  An evaluation of rare earth screen/film combinations. , 1976, Radiology.

[23]  M D Cohen,et al.  Phosphor plate computed radiography: response to variation in mAs at fixed kVp in an animal model. Potential role in neonatal imaging. , 1993, Clinical radiology.